Goal-directed fluid therapy in autologous breast reconstruction results in less fluid and more vasopressor administration without outcome compromise Journal Article


Authors: Polanco, T. O.; Shamsunder, M. G.; Hicks, M. E. V.; Seier, K. P.; Tan, K. S.; Oskar, S.; Dayan, J. H.; Disa, J. J.; Mehrara, B. J.; Allen, R. J. Jr; Nelson, J. A.; Afonso, A. M.
Article Title: Goal-directed fluid therapy in autologous breast reconstruction results in less fluid and more vasopressor administration without outcome compromise
Abstract: Objective: Aggressive or restricted perioperative fluid management has been shown to increase complications in patients undergoing microsurgery. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) aims to administer fluid, vasoactive agents, and inotropes according to each patient's hemodynamic indices. This study assesses GDFT impact on perioperative outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) patients, as there remains a gap in management understanding. We hypothesize that GDFT will have lower fluid administration and equivocal outcomes compared to patients not on GDFT. Methods: A single-center retrospective review was conducted on ABR patients from January 2010-April 2017. An enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) using GDFT was implemented in April 2015. With GDFT, patients were administered intraoperative fluids and vasoactive agents according to hemodynamic indices. Patients prior to April 2015 were included in the pre-ERAS cohort. Primary outcomes included the amount and rate of fluid delivery, urine output (UOP), vasopressor administration, major (i.e., flap failure) and minor (i.e., seroma) complications, and length of stay (LOS). Results: Overall, 777 patients underwent ABR (ERAS: 312 and pre-ERAS: 465). ERAS patients received significantly less total fluid volume (ERAS median: 3750 mL [IQR: 3000–4500 mL]; pre-ERAS median: 5000 mL [IQR 4000–6400 mL]; and p<0.001), had lower UOP, were more likely to receive vasopressor agents (47% vs 35% and p<0.001), and had lower LOS (ERAS: 4 days [4–5]; pre-ERAS: 5 [4–6]; and p<0.001) as compared to pre-ERAS patients. Complications did not differ between cohorts. Conclusions: GDFT, as part of ERAS, and the prudent use of vasopressors were found to be safe and did not increase morbidity in ABR patients. GDFT provides individualized perioperative care to the ABR patient. © 2021
Keywords: adult; controlled study; major clinical study; fluid therapy; cohort analysis; creatinine; breast reconstruction; microsurgery; retrospective study; postoperative complication; length of stay; perioperative period; deep inferior epigastric perforator flap; hemodynamics; resuscitation; infusion fluid; anesthesia; hematocrit; hypertensive agent; inotropic agent; urine volume; rectus abdominis muscle; phenylephrine; autotransplantation; free flap; blood pressure monitoring; ephedrine; vasoactive agent; fluid resuscitation; human; male; female; article; fluid balance; goal directed fluid therapy; enhanced recovery after surgery; autologous breast reconstruction; vasopressors; inferior epigastric artery
Journal Title: Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
Volume: 74
Issue: 9
ISSN: 1748-6815
Publisher: Elsevier Science, Inc.  
Date Published: 2021-09-01
Start Page: 2227
End Page: 2236
Language: English
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.01.017
PUBMED: 33745850
PROVIDER: scopus
PMCID: PMC9173811
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Export Date: 1 October 2021 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Joseph Disa
    262 Disa
  2. Babak Mehrara
    448 Mehrara
  3. Anoushka Maria Afonso
    47 Afonso
  4. Sabine   Oskar
    9 Oskar
  5. Kay See   Tan
    241 Tan
  6. Joseph Henry Dayan
    100 Dayan
  7. Jonas Allan Nelson
    208 Nelson
  8. Kenneth Seier
    104 Seier
  9. Thais O Polanco
    24 Polanco
  10. Madeleine Elisabeth Vige Hicks
    3 Hicks